What do you think?
Rate this book
Astrotopia: The Dangerous Religion of the Corporate Space Race
A revealing look at the parallel mythologies behind the colonization of Earth and space—and a bold vision for a more equitable, responsible future both on and beyond our planet.
As environmental, political, and public health crises multiply on Earth, we are also at the dawn of a new space race in which governments team up with celebrity billionaires to exploit the cosmos for human gain. The best-known of these pioneers are selling different visions of the while Elon Musk and SpaceX seek to establish a human presence on Mars, Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin work toward moving millions of earthlings into rotating near-Earth habitats. Despite these distinctions, these two billionaires share a core utopian the salvation of humanity through the exploitation of space.
In Astrotopia , philosopher of science and religion Mary-Jane Rubenstein pulls back the curtain on the not-so-new myths these space barons are peddling, like growth without limit, energy without guilt, and salvation in a brand-new world. As Rubenstein reveals, we have already seen the destructive effects of this frontier zealotry in the centuries-long history of European colonialism. Much like the imperial project on Earth, this renewed effort to conquer space is presented as a religious in the face of a coming apocalypse, some very wealthy messiahs are offering an other-worldly escape to a chosen few. But Rubenstein does more than expose the values of capitalist technoscience as the product of bad mythologies. She offers a vision of exploring space without reproducing the atrocities of earthly colonialism, encouraging us to find and even make stories that put cosmic caretaking over profiteering.
As environmental, political, and public health crises multiply on Earth, we are also at the dawn of a new space race in which governments team up with celebrity billionaires to exploit the cosmos for human gain. The best-known of these pioneers are selling different visions of the while Elon Musk and SpaceX seek to establish a human presence on Mars, Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin work toward moving millions of earthlings into rotating near-Earth habitats. Despite these distinctions, these two billionaires share a core utopian the salvation of humanity through the exploitation of space.
In Astrotopia , philosopher of science and religion Mary-Jane Rubenstein pulls back the curtain on the not-so-new myths these space barons are peddling, like growth without limit, energy without guilt, and salvation in a brand-new world. As Rubenstein reveals, we have already seen the destructive effects of this frontier zealotry in the centuries-long history of European colonialism. Much like the imperial project on Earth, this renewed effort to conquer space is presented as a religious in the face of a coming apocalypse, some very wealthy messiahs are offering an other-worldly escape to a chosen few. But Rubenstein does more than expose the values of capitalist technoscience as the product of bad mythologies. She offers a vision of exploring space without reproducing the atrocities of earthly colonialism, encouraging us to find and even make stories that put cosmic caretaking over profiteering.
224 pages, Hardcover
Published November 25, 2022
22 people are currently reading
594 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
September 24, 2024
Mary-Jane Rubenstein – Astrotopia
Quando Iniciei o livro “Astrotopia” esperava que o mesmo fizesse uma análise à deriva “utópica” de exploração espacial corporizada por Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos e outros. E se esta era a minha espectativa, ela não foi de modo algum gorada. Numa proza elegante, esclarecida, irónica e bem humorada, Mary-Jane descreve-nos as ideias dos que são a “guarda avançada” da exploração comercial do espaço incentivada pelos responsáveis do governo americano e pelas organizações nacionais (NASA) que veem nesta complementaridade entre organismos oficiais e privados uma porta giratória de poder e proventos. Estava eu longe de imaginar que esta exploração tinha sido entregue por Barak Obama a privados para transformar o que até então era uma exploração cuidadosa vocacionada para o conhecimento do universo e do que significa ser humano, para ser transformada numa desenfreada e estupidamente utópica exploração do espaço. Fiquei chocado, ainda mais por isso ter acontecido durante um mandato de um presidente que via com uma visão que a autora descreve como “panteísta”. Como estava errado e iludido com o “flop” que foi o consulado Obama. Obama deu corpo a uma ideia que o antecedeu e que a autora situa pelos primórdios da corrida ao espaço e o período auge da guerra fria, um período e uma competição protagonizada pelos presidentes Eisenhower e JFK. Esperava eu que este aspecto fosse o tema central deste livro, e se o fosse já teria cumprido boa parte das minhas expectativas.
A deriva espacial americana transporta para a exploração dessa nova fronteira triliões de dólares, fortunas e riqueza de todos nós humanos e que poderia ser utilizada na “reparação” de um planeta moribundo entre outras, pela deriva que agora nos é “vendida” como de salvação da espécie e da nossa cultura. Como defende a autora, é um sistemático raciocínio capcioso onde as causas para uma dada intervenção são justificadas pela acção dessas mesmas intervenções. É um raciocínio circular que Mary-Jane não se cansa de repetir ao longo das suas 200 páginas. Como é possível investir esses triliões de uma forma absurdamente lesiva para o planeta dizendo que é um investimento para o salvar. Mas salvar quem, quando, como, e se alguma vez conseguirem algo aproximado, será a que custo?. Mas é fácil de perceber o que move os “astrotopista”. Elon Musk diz-nos que o planeta está à beira da exaustão e só fora dele encontraremos a salvação. E quando lhe é dito que ele ao tentar salvá-lo agrava mais ainda a sua situação, a sua resposta foi elucidativa – “que se foda o planeta!”. Jeff Bezos, tem uma prespectiva algo diferente. Bezos vê o planeta a ficar exausto de recursos e como se recusa a ter mais parcimónia no que consome, tem uma fuga para a frente, não reconhece que foi o modelo de crescimento económico capitalista que nos trouxe até aqui e recusa liminarmente alguma contenção aos seus hábitos de consumo. Os EUA consomem por ano 1/5 do que o planeta consegue renovar nesse mesmo espaço. Se o consumismo americano necessitava de 5 planetas, o de Jeff Bezos e o que ele gostaria de deixar de legado aos seus descendentes é seguramente 10X maior.
Indivíduos com Musk e Bezos são um câncer na sociedade cuja remoção urge se queremos ter alguma esperança de cura a médio prazo.
Se o livro de Mary-Jane Rubenstein se limitasse a esta análise já estaria mais que justificado, porém a autora brinda-nos com o seu conhecimento da bíblia e de outras formas de visão do mundo mais panteísta para fazer uma brilhante ponte entre o ideal bíblico da criação contido na expressão, ide e multiplicai-vos e enchei a terra. Dominai os mares, os animais, as plantas e tudo o que a vista alcançar. E foi mesmo isso que fizemos e o resultado foi a construção do modelo de crescimento capitalista, sempre dependente do crescimento para pagar a dívida, um crescimento que quanto mais acelerado estava maior crescimento implicava para se manter sustentado. O resultado é a perda de biodiversidade, a poluição, a devastação de florestas e mares, a destruição da casa comum. Mary-Jane faz aqui uma brilhante ligação entre o ideal cristão e católico com os períodos das descobertas de áfrica e das américas e de que forma o beneplácito papal de então legitimou toda a devastação então iniciada. Eram outros tempos bem sei, mas os argumentos que então justificaram a devastação e delapidação desses novos mundos correm agora o risco de se repetirem pala mão dos “astrotopistas”
Astrotopia de Mary-Jane Rubenstein, um livro que claramente recomendo e que sobre sociologia e ecologia é seguramente do melhor que tenho lido
Quando Iniciei o livro “Astrotopia” esperava que o mesmo fizesse uma análise à deriva “utópica” de exploração espacial corporizada por Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos e outros. E se esta era a minha espectativa, ela não foi de modo algum gorada. Numa proza elegante, esclarecida, irónica e bem humorada, Mary-Jane descreve-nos as ideias dos que são a “guarda avançada” da exploração comercial do espaço incentivada pelos responsáveis do governo americano e pelas organizações nacionais (NASA) que veem nesta complementaridade entre organismos oficiais e privados uma porta giratória de poder e proventos. Estava eu longe de imaginar que esta exploração tinha sido entregue por Barak Obama a privados para transformar o que até então era uma exploração cuidadosa vocacionada para o conhecimento do universo e do que significa ser humano, para ser transformada numa desenfreada e estupidamente utópica exploração do espaço. Fiquei chocado, ainda mais por isso ter acontecido durante um mandato de um presidente que via com uma visão que a autora descreve como “panteísta”. Como estava errado e iludido com o “flop” que foi o consulado Obama. Obama deu corpo a uma ideia que o antecedeu e que a autora situa pelos primórdios da corrida ao espaço e o período auge da guerra fria, um período e uma competição protagonizada pelos presidentes Eisenhower e JFK. Esperava eu que este aspecto fosse o tema central deste livro, e se o fosse já teria cumprido boa parte das minhas expectativas.
A deriva espacial americana transporta para a exploração dessa nova fronteira triliões de dólares, fortunas e riqueza de todos nós humanos e que poderia ser utilizada na “reparação” de um planeta moribundo entre outras, pela deriva que agora nos é “vendida” como de salvação da espécie e da nossa cultura. Como defende a autora, é um sistemático raciocínio capcioso onde as causas para uma dada intervenção são justificadas pela acção dessas mesmas intervenções. É um raciocínio circular que Mary-Jane não se cansa de repetir ao longo das suas 200 páginas. Como é possível investir esses triliões de uma forma absurdamente lesiva para o planeta dizendo que é um investimento para o salvar. Mas salvar quem, quando, como, e se alguma vez conseguirem algo aproximado, será a que custo?. Mas é fácil de perceber o que move os “astrotopista”. Elon Musk diz-nos que o planeta está à beira da exaustão e só fora dele encontraremos a salvação. E quando lhe é dito que ele ao tentar salvá-lo agrava mais ainda a sua situação, a sua resposta foi elucidativa – “que se foda o planeta!”. Jeff Bezos, tem uma prespectiva algo diferente. Bezos vê o planeta a ficar exausto de recursos e como se recusa a ter mais parcimónia no que consome, tem uma fuga para a frente, não reconhece que foi o modelo de crescimento económico capitalista que nos trouxe até aqui e recusa liminarmente alguma contenção aos seus hábitos de consumo. Os EUA consomem por ano 1/5 do que o planeta consegue renovar nesse mesmo espaço. Se o consumismo americano necessitava de 5 planetas, o de Jeff Bezos e o que ele gostaria de deixar de legado aos seus descendentes é seguramente 10X maior.
Indivíduos com Musk e Bezos são um câncer na sociedade cuja remoção urge se queremos ter alguma esperança de cura a médio prazo.
Se o livro de Mary-Jane Rubenstein se limitasse a esta análise já estaria mais que justificado, porém a autora brinda-nos com o seu conhecimento da bíblia e de outras formas de visão do mundo mais panteísta para fazer uma brilhante ponte entre o ideal bíblico da criação contido na expressão, ide e multiplicai-vos e enchei a terra. Dominai os mares, os animais, as plantas e tudo o que a vista alcançar. E foi mesmo isso que fizemos e o resultado foi a construção do modelo de crescimento capitalista, sempre dependente do crescimento para pagar a dívida, um crescimento que quanto mais acelerado estava maior crescimento implicava para se manter sustentado. O resultado é a perda de biodiversidade, a poluição, a devastação de florestas e mares, a destruição da casa comum. Mary-Jane faz aqui uma brilhante ligação entre o ideal cristão e católico com os períodos das descobertas de áfrica e das américas e de que forma o beneplácito papal de então legitimou toda a devastação então iniciada. Eram outros tempos bem sei, mas os argumentos que então justificaram a devastação e delapidação desses novos mundos correm agora o risco de se repetirem pala mão dos “astrotopistas”
Astrotopia de Mary-Jane Rubenstein, um livro que claramente recomendo e que sobre sociologia e ecologia é seguramente do melhor que tenho lido
October 10, 2023
In many ways, this book is exactly what I wanted to read on the intersection between the topics of imperialism and the space race. With an accessible and humorous tone, the author contextualizes the West’s push toward space domination within the last few hundred years of Christianity’s reign and its “Doctrine of Discovery”, while it’s only in the last decade or so that the Obama-era decision to relinquish space exploration to the private sector has given way to the present-day reality of junk-littered skies and luxury cars in space, all while our atmosphere burns. “And Whitey’s on the Moon”, indeed.
Much of the author’s writing focuses on cartoon-villain-turned-space-overlord CEOs Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, and I find myself thinking about the reasons they give for their venture into space again and again. For Musk, SpaceX is more or less a “fuck you” to planet Earth, while for Bezos, Blue Origin is the only chance his kids will have to live in a free society—and by “free”, he means one in which they can access unlimited amounts of energy without consequence.
This is where my frustration with the book arose. The author attributes the space billionaire mentality to a kind of new religion arising from imperial Christianity, undermining the simple fact that it only takes capitalist logic in a newly unregulated space to produce such a mindset. Consequently, most arguments will fall short of convincing people who see capitalism as an “engine of prosperity” in need of just a little tune-up. For these readers, the commodification of space represents humanity’s next great achievement; any progress is good progress (especially the technological kind, see also: autonomous vehicles, cryptocurrency, AI, virtual reality), and focusing on imperialism alone will do little to dislodge the capitalist rhetoric that ultimately justifies it. Furthermore, who elected these self-appointed world leaders, and why do they face no opposition in their bid to send vast amounts of the world’s wealth into outer space? The growing problem of capitalist tyranny goes unaddressed.
So while it may not have been in the author’s area of expertise, I would have loved to see more synthesis on the topic of capitalism and its never-ending requirement for growth, and moreover, the space economy’s role in fuelling capitalism through the catastrophic fallout of its own worst contradictions—what I imagine to be its true purpose at this pivotal time for both the climate and the masses of increasingly outraged workers, voters and consumers.
Much of the author’s writing focuses on cartoon-villain-turned-space-overlord CEOs Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, and I find myself thinking about the reasons they give for their venture into space again and again. For Musk, SpaceX is more or less a “fuck you” to planet Earth, while for Bezos, Blue Origin is the only chance his kids will have to live in a free society—and by “free”, he means one in which they can access unlimited amounts of energy without consequence.
This is where my frustration with the book arose. The author attributes the space billionaire mentality to a kind of new religion arising from imperial Christianity, undermining the simple fact that it only takes capitalist logic in a newly unregulated space to produce such a mindset. Consequently, most arguments will fall short of convincing people who see capitalism as an “engine of prosperity” in need of just a little tune-up. For these readers, the commodification of space represents humanity’s next great achievement; any progress is good progress (especially the technological kind, see also: autonomous vehicles, cryptocurrency, AI, virtual reality), and focusing on imperialism alone will do little to dislodge the capitalist rhetoric that ultimately justifies it. Furthermore, who elected these self-appointed world leaders, and why do they face no opposition in their bid to send vast amounts of the world’s wealth into outer space? The growing problem of capitalist tyranny goes unaddressed.
So while it may not have been in the author’s area of expertise, I would have loved to see more synthesis on the topic of capitalism and its never-ending requirement for growth, and moreover, the space economy’s role in fuelling capitalism through the catastrophic fallout of its own worst contradictions—what I imagine to be its true purpose at this pivotal time for both the climate and the masses of increasingly outraged workers, voters and consumers.
September 6, 2023
Avoid.
I've expected some facts, rational calculations, and valid alternatives.
What I've got:
- don't rape the universe because rocks have their rights (Moon resisted astronauts, it has memory, ...)
- we're conquering the universe because of the god of Christians
- when Armstrong said, "it's a small step for a man, but a huge leap for humanity", how did he help gay rights?
- satellites are bad because navigators with indigenous heritage cannot navigate by stars at night
- what a pity we've let down animism because when we believed there were spirits in rivers, lakes, hills, we were reluctant to harm them
- why all this progress? progress is bad!
- a naked person would not survive in space, which means we shouldn't be going there at all! (did the author try flying a plane or sailing a ship?)
etc.
Delusions, mental fallacies, and other crap. Oversimplified reasoning on why we want to get to space.
The only thing that makes sense in the whole book is that space conquest should not be motivated by saying this planet (Earth) is doomed; but frankly - it was probably used someday by someone, but I never hear it as the main rhetoric.
The funny thing is that when you think the author can't go any further in her madness, she keeps saying: "hold my beer" ... The final chapters (e.g., on Afrofuturism, with some ridiculous quotes from SF books) were literally non-digestible at all.
Avoid it unless you find fun in devouring crazy activism.
I've expected some facts, rational calculations, and valid alternatives.
What I've got:
- don't rape the universe because rocks have their rights (Moon resisted astronauts, it has memory, ...)
- we're conquering the universe because of the god of Christians
- when Armstrong said, "it's a small step for a man, but a huge leap for humanity", how did he help gay rights?
- satellites are bad because navigators with indigenous heritage cannot navigate by stars at night
- what a pity we've let down animism because when we believed there were spirits in rivers, lakes, hills, we were reluctant to harm them
- why all this progress? progress is bad!
- a naked person would not survive in space, which means we shouldn't be going there at all! (did the author try flying a plane or sailing a ship?)
etc.
Delusions, mental fallacies, and other crap. Oversimplified reasoning on why we want to get to space.
The only thing that makes sense in the whole book is that space conquest should not be motivated by saying this planet (Earth) is doomed; but frankly - it was probably used someday by someone, but I never hear it as the main rhetoric.
The funny thing is that when you think the author can't go any further in her madness, she keeps saying: "hold my beer" ... The final chapters (e.g., on Afrofuturism, with some ridiculous quotes from SF books) were literally non-digestible at all.
Avoid it unless you find fun in devouring crazy activism.
January 1, 2023
This is the first time Rubenstein has let me down. After a string of some of the most amazing books I've ever read on pantheism, multiverses, and philosophical wonder, I guess regression to the mean was inevitable. Where those earlier books were high-wire balancing acts of erudition and playfulness, the tone here fell flat for me. It's acerbic without earning it.
Of course I agree with the fundamental thesis that the commodification of space is unlikely to have any more salutary effects than it has here on earth. But Rubenstein didn't really do much to convince me that the "astrotopians" are as intellectually bankrupt as she avers. She repeatedly reiterates the claim that the justification for space exploration is circular reasoning (that we need to go to space to get the resources there so that we can colonize space), but that feels like a bad-faith reading that ignores the real arguments for managing planetary-scale risks. Those arguments may be susceptible to other critiques (do we deserve to be a multi-planet species? is it technically feasible?), but Rubenstein doesn't really attack head-on. Instead, she relies on repetition and barrages of rhetorical questions about what we value (and the value to be gleaned from Afrofuturist and Indigenous perspectives). I'm sympathetic to that approach, but only after you do the hard work of critiquing the dominant Western paradigm, and that part is the weakest of the text.
She says that mainstream denominations have largely abandoned the dominionist heritage of Christianity, but that it has been picked up in a lightly secularized form by Musk, Bezos, and their astrotopian confreres. That seems like a highly reductive view at best, and lacks the deep readings needed to flesh it out in the form Rubenstein presents. There are plenty of Christian dominionists still out there mucking things up for us. The astrotopians are clearly furthering an imperial project that commenced under the Church, and I believe they're still in a religious thrall they refuse to acknowledge. But I don't feel like Rubenstein has established it here.
There is some cool stuff in here about things like Octavia Butler's Earthseed series, Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas", the role born-again-Christian-cum-Nazi Wernher von Braun and Walt Disney had in the space race, the number of bags of astronaut diapers left on the moon (96!), and bagging on Elon Musk (the sport of kings!). But overall, this relatively brief book felt baggy and rudderless in a way that none of Rubenstein's other output has. It seems like a cool project, but this one needed more tinkering before launch. That won't stop me from reading anything else Rubenstein writes, though. It's probably a 2.5/5, but I'll round up out of respect for the author.
Of course I agree with the fundamental thesis that the commodification of space is unlikely to have any more salutary effects than it has here on earth. But Rubenstein didn't really do much to convince me that the "astrotopians" are as intellectually bankrupt as she avers. She repeatedly reiterates the claim that the justification for space exploration is circular reasoning (that we need to go to space to get the resources there so that we can colonize space), but that feels like a bad-faith reading that ignores the real arguments for managing planetary-scale risks. Those arguments may be susceptible to other critiques (do we deserve to be a multi-planet species? is it technically feasible?), but Rubenstein doesn't really attack head-on. Instead, she relies on repetition and barrages of rhetorical questions about what we value (and the value to be gleaned from Afrofuturist and Indigenous perspectives). I'm sympathetic to that approach, but only after you do the hard work of critiquing the dominant Western paradigm, and that part is the weakest of the text.
She says that mainstream denominations have largely abandoned the dominionist heritage of Christianity, but that it has been picked up in a lightly secularized form by Musk, Bezos, and their astrotopian confreres. That seems like a highly reductive view at best, and lacks the deep readings needed to flesh it out in the form Rubenstein presents. There are plenty of Christian dominionists still out there mucking things up for us. The astrotopians are clearly furthering an imperial project that commenced under the Church, and I believe they're still in a religious thrall they refuse to acknowledge. But I don't feel like Rubenstein has established it here.
There is some cool stuff in here about things like Octavia Butler's Earthseed series, Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas", the role born-again-Christian-cum-Nazi Wernher von Braun and Walt Disney had in the space race, the number of bags of astronaut diapers left on the moon (96!), and bagging on Elon Musk (the sport of kings!). But overall, this relatively brief book felt baggy and rudderless in a way that none of Rubenstein's other output has. It seems like a cool project, but this one needed more tinkering before launch. That won't stop me from reading anything else Rubenstein writes, though. It's probably a 2.5/5, but I'll round up out of respect for the author.
December 17, 2025
✦⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆✦
✧｡･ﾟﾟ･☾ Review ☾･ﾟﾟ･｡✧
Too opinionated
✧｡･ﾟﾟ･☾ Review ☾･ﾟﾟ･｡✧
Too opinionated
November 19, 2023
I have been wondering what I actually read in "Astrotopia." It is so full of fallacies and philosophical short-cuts, tech-phobic arguments, and "interesting" conclusions... that I still struggle to understand what Rubenstein thinks she produced here.
Yes, her thoughts around the belief in and pursuit of space solutions and potential industries being some sort of exploitative extension of Christian imperialism and run-away capitalism... Sure, I get where she's coming from, but how solid is her foundation when it's so full of fallacy holes and short-cuts that you could drive a space ship through it!? And it's a shame, everyone and their mother can spot exploitative ideas in the reasoning behind space exploration, and there are some really good arguments against it (some of which the author addresses, and too often undermines in the process).
Her solutions - or rather, her alternatives - could have been plucked from the pages of the "Hippie Times" (if such a newspaper existed). It's a weird "Noble Savage", kumbaya, Gaia platform that holds about as much water as a sieve. WTF!? (I know that sounds super judgey, it´s not meant that way, I'm merely struggling to find a better way of summing it up) Rubenstein is no dummy, so - and I repeat - wtf?
I do not recommend this, but some of the underlying philosophical discussions bastardized here are worth exploring further. Both because they're interesting in general and because we do have a tendency to philosophize about pesky things like ethics and morals post-facto. They deserve better than this book, but there are some kernels of good hidden in a mostly sad effort at addressing these issues. So, this is a pretty weak two stars for me.
Yes, her thoughts around the belief in and pursuit of space solutions and potential industries being some sort of exploitative extension of Christian imperialism and run-away capitalism... Sure, I get where she's coming from, but how solid is her foundation when it's so full of fallacy holes and short-cuts that you could drive a space ship through it!? And it's a shame, everyone and their mother can spot exploitative ideas in the reasoning behind space exploration, and there are some really good arguments against it (some of which the author addresses, and too often undermines in the process).
Her solutions - or rather, her alternatives - could have been plucked from the pages of the "Hippie Times" (if such a newspaper existed). It's a weird "Noble Savage", kumbaya, Gaia platform that holds about as much water as a sieve. WTF!? (I know that sounds super judgey, it´s not meant that way, I'm merely struggling to find a better way of summing it up) Rubenstein is no dummy, so - and I repeat - wtf?
I do not recommend this, but some of the underlying philosophical discussions bastardized here are worth exploring further. Both because they're interesting in general and because we do have a tendency to philosophize about pesky things like ethics and morals post-facto. They deserve better than this book, but there are some kernels of good hidden in a mostly sad effort at addressing these issues. So, this is a pretty weak two stars for me.
February 27, 2024
An embarassingly bad screed filled with junk history, junk science, junk economics, and junk philosophy. There are a couple of interesting ideas here, but they're surrounded and drowned out by garbage, and worse, garbage that's delivered in a haughty tone that masquerades as wisdom.
February 29, 2024
So, my biggest issue with this book might be that it's already somewhat dated. Published in 2022, it was probably basically finished in 2021, meaning that this is before one of Rubenstein's main subjects, Elon Musk, had not yet totally gone off the rails and made clear, by his behavior, his unalloyed authoritarianism. This is not to mention it's become even more clear that the so-called "Libertarianism" of the "Tech Boys" is just more of the same old authoritarian will to power, simply allied with a fascination with "shiny" technological toys and the usual get-rich-quick blind spot towards "externalities" displayed by the huckster mentality.
That said, Rubenstein's connection of the crusading spirit of Imperial Christianity as a foundation of various modern versions of "Manifest Destiny" is a useful point. Less good is Rubenstein's evocation of a new "pantheism" as a potential way forward. Even if I'm given serious pause by modern industrial culture's headlong rush to disaster, and find myself disgusted by the waste of it all, I remain unconvinced that the cultural solutions that worked for small, basically rural societies, are all that relevant to mass urban society. Still, ask me that question again after the looming great power war and the long emergency of surviving climate change. The best estimate now is that the warming ocean currents of the "Atlantic Conveyor" are likely to collapse from an overload of heat in the next few years, leading to the onset of a new ice age; good times (not)!
That said, Rubenstein's connection of the crusading spirit of Imperial Christianity as a foundation of various modern versions of "Manifest Destiny" is a useful point. Less good is Rubenstein's evocation of a new "pantheism" as a potential way forward. Even if I'm given serious pause by modern industrial culture's headlong rush to disaster, and find myself disgusted by the waste of it all, I remain unconvinced that the cultural solutions that worked for small, basically rural societies, are all that relevant to mass urban society. Still, ask me that question again after the looming great power war and the long emergency of surviving climate change. The best estimate now is that the warming ocean currents of the "Atlantic Conveyor" are likely to collapse from an overload of heat in the next few years, leading to the onset of a new ice age; good times (not)!
April 29, 2024
An absolutely brilliant book that brings together this giant web of environmental justice, capitalism, Christofascism, the whiteness of Western techno-science, colonization and imperialism, American exceptionalism, human exceptionalism, and saviorism in a way that is so incredibly clear and fascinating to read.
Read
March 24, 2023Why was this a book and not an essay? Because the opening chapter was good and funny and then it got repetitive. I kept skipping forward hoping to find something interesting, but I kept reading more of the same.
I tried.
I tried.
August 17, 2023
Frustrating. I came into this book wanting to have my mind changed but on almost every page there were misapprehensions or straw man arguments - it wasn't possible to determine which. The most compelling way to create an argument in a narrative like this (as opposed to a dialogue or debate) is to present the _strongest_ case against your idea and then demonstrate where its assumptions falter or there's a fault in the logic, etc. Straw man arguments do just the opposite, grabbing weak arguments against your idea and showing how dumb they are and that's what happens so much in this book. With moments that are basically like "watch me dunk on this" or moments like Jim turning to the camera in The Office, like "did Bezos really just say that?" I never heard a counterargument to what I view as the strongest case for astrotopia, the one that Elon Musk has defined as SpaceX's primary mission: to extend life beyond a single planet so that we reduce the chances that any single catastrophic event can wipe out our species and others (any Mars colony will _require_ us to bring at least plants with us). Several times the author mentioned this argument, it got lumped together in a string with many of the other arguments (like the push for asteroid mining) and then the author would select one of the weak arguments, say something pithy, and do one of those Jim moments side eyeing the audience. For the entire duration of the book I was waiting for the author to address the fundamental question posed by our strongest argument: the author is fine with the fact that eventually humanity and all Earth life will be wiped out?
As the author ran through all the reason Mars sucks as a destination, one of the key problems was that it'll take hundreds to thousands of years for it to be someone that's not insanely hostile. In many other places, the author became flabbergasted by all the "manufactured urgency". This is a place where the author's arguments contradict each other (unless the answer to the question above is that the author is fine with all Earth-life being wiped out eventually). It's going to take a _long_ time to take our first step into the stars. We have much of the technology to start that step now. We don't know when the next massive catastrophe is going to happen but the probability is directly proportional to the timescale considered. Given how long it is going to take for the first step (Mars), _that_ is where the urgency comes from. Not only do we have much of the technology to do this now, but we've also got the resources. The next pandemic could have a much higher mortality rate -- even if a catastrophe doesn't wipe out humans, something like the black plague on a global scale would prevent us from having the resources to continue building toward Mars.
The author also makes the binary, either/or, argument that many people opposed to NASA make. Why spend money on any of this stuff when there is still injustice in the world. That's never been a compelling argument to me. It's not a zero sum game... this is a both/and situation. We _should_ be reducing poverty (and in fact have been for a long time now, see the actual numbers on this presented in many places, like Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now). I'd concede that in the last several years we've been backsliding on income inequality and social justice issues. But we can continue the fight to restore those and continue bending the arc of the moral universe toward justice while _also_ doing other things, like exploring and expanding into space. Again, the argument just doesn't hold water for me that we shouldn't spend money on aerospace while there are still problems on earth. The same exact argument could be made about all sorts of things then: why spend money supporting the Smithsonian while poverty remains a problem in the world? why spend money on music, theater, professors studying history or philosophy or religion? For all of these things and more, good cases can be made for why society as a whole (government, company R&D, donations to nonprofits, whatever) should spend money on them. It's both/and -- the world would _not_ be a good place if we had to get every person on the planet to agree about what the ordered set of priorities is and then we step one by one down the list addressing each problem in series until it is solved.
Which segues into one of the other major problems I had with this book. The author just can't seem to fathom how anybody could want to explore and expand into space. BUT the author goes on at length how some societies consider particular geological formations to be sacred, while another may not; ditto for what kinds of meat are okay to eat, etc. Here, the author makes it clear that they understand that different groups of people will value things differently. People who want to explore and expand into space are the same. This section _did_ raise an interesting topic that I wish had been explored more -- a real missed opportunity. Fine, some people may consider some places or things in space to be sacred. But _all_ of them? If one person says they hold something sacred, does that mean we can't do anything with it? The author asked if it's okay to eat a carrot and said the answer is yes. Well how is digging on one part of the moon or setting up camp on one part of Mars that different? Yes, some people will be pissed. Some people will be overly gung ho. The place where it is interesting is finding the right _balance_ between these things, and what kinds of systems we can configure to find that balance. None of this was discussed but it's where the most interesting conversation lies, in my opinion.
And related to that, my thinking was strongly influenced by the book Mine! by Michael A. Heller, James Salzman. They talk about all the different rules we have for determining ownership of things, e.g., first in time (like indigenous peoples), possession (9/10 of the law and all that), labored for it, strong attachment to something, self-ownership, and family. It would've been SO INTERESTING to bring this framework into the discussion of how we determine who can own parts of the Moon, Mars, etc. But nope.
That also reminds me of something that I noticed -- It seems like the author hasn't examined their own thoughts about indigenous people. Throughout the book, they ascribe a lot of weight to anything such people believe or find valuable. I get that, and feel much the same way. But what I was hoping the author would discuss is how that applies to colonizing Mars. All being indigenous means is that those people got there first (or that they got there a long time ago). Those people _were_ explorers! It just happened a long time ago and somehow that fact seems to make it so that none of the questions the author raised about later explorers are applicable.
The author _almost_ discussed this kind of thing. But instead jumped a step, talking about how "no one being there" on the moon or Mars isn't good enough justification. How would the rocks feel? What rights do these places have? There's _something_ of an argument there, but this gets back to that "is eating a carrot okay?" and how that's different from digging a camp on Mars, and back to the systems for how we find balance between multiple things we value as a society and species.
The author talks so much about how western society sucks because we've used christian stuff to justify our cruel expansion. I was hoping the author would dig deeper and get to the biological drive to expand. In my mind, all the manifest destiny talk is just leaders figuring out how to speak to their audiences, whether or not they believe this stuff themselves. Most forms of life seek to survive by expanding and adapting to new environments. Expanding to Mars is just the same. The author also seems to think we are somehow different from other life, somehow what _we_ do isn't natural. Carl Sagan came up a few times in the book: my favorite quote of his is, "We are a way for the universe to know itself." Just because we have intelligence, does not mean the things we do are unnatural. We are of nature -- it's literally impossible to do things that are unnatural. Where the nuance comes in to incorporate the authors view is that we should use our intelligence to _temper_ those primal drives and respect other forms of life and parts of nature, and the balance that must be maintained to allow all of these things to thrive. We shouldn't expand like self-replicating paperclips. But we shouldn't stick to one planet and enter a relentless pursuit to minimize our impact on nature to the point where we may as well not exist at all. It reminds me of Michael Pollen's books where he questions the whole premise that we've mastered nature -- have we domesticated corn, or has corn figured out a way to manipulate humans to spread it all over the place, not just surviving but thriving.
This is an extremely long review and I'm not spending the time to write it well. It is a testament to this book that it got me so fired up. My brain was on high gear the entire time I listened to it. So.. even if I strongly disagree with the conclusions of the book and find the method of argument to be extremely disappointing, it certainly got me passionate and kept me highly engaged.
Just came across this short interview clip with Carl Sagan, addressing exactly one of the major points made in this book and discussed above: https://twitter.com/carlsagandotcom/s...
Recommended by Parvathy.
As the author ran through all the reason Mars sucks as a destination, one of the key problems was that it'll take hundreds to thousands of years for it to be someone that's not insanely hostile. In many other places, the author became flabbergasted by all the "manufactured urgency". This is a place where the author's arguments contradict each other (unless the answer to the question above is that the author is fine with all Earth-life being wiped out eventually). It's going to take a _long_ time to take our first step into the stars. We have much of the technology to start that step now. We don't know when the next massive catastrophe is going to happen but the probability is directly proportional to the timescale considered. Given how long it is going to take for the first step (Mars), _that_ is where the urgency comes from. Not only do we have much of the technology to do this now, but we've also got the resources. The next pandemic could have a much higher mortality rate -- even if a catastrophe doesn't wipe out humans, something like the black plague on a global scale would prevent us from having the resources to continue building toward Mars.
The author also makes the binary, either/or, argument that many people opposed to NASA make. Why spend money on any of this stuff when there is still injustice in the world. That's never been a compelling argument to me. It's not a zero sum game... this is a both/and situation. We _should_ be reducing poverty (and in fact have been for a long time now, see the actual numbers on this presented in many places, like Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now). I'd concede that in the last several years we've been backsliding on income inequality and social justice issues. But we can continue the fight to restore those and continue bending the arc of the moral universe toward justice while _also_ doing other things, like exploring and expanding into space. Again, the argument just doesn't hold water for me that we shouldn't spend money on aerospace while there are still problems on earth. The same exact argument could be made about all sorts of things then: why spend money supporting the Smithsonian while poverty remains a problem in the world? why spend money on music, theater, professors studying history or philosophy or religion? For all of these things and more, good cases can be made for why society as a whole (government, company R&D, donations to nonprofits, whatever) should spend money on them. It's both/and -- the world would _not_ be a good place if we had to get every person on the planet to agree about what the ordered set of priorities is and then we step one by one down the list addressing each problem in series until it is solved.
Which segues into one of the other major problems I had with this book. The author just can't seem to fathom how anybody could want to explore and expand into space. BUT the author goes on at length how some societies consider particular geological formations to be sacred, while another may not; ditto for what kinds of meat are okay to eat, etc. Here, the author makes it clear that they understand that different groups of people will value things differently. People who want to explore and expand into space are the same. This section _did_ raise an interesting topic that I wish had been explored more -- a real missed opportunity. Fine, some people may consider some places or things in space to be sacred. But _all_ of them? If one person says they hold something sacred, does that mean we can't do anything with it? The author asked if it's okay to eat a carrot and said the answer is yes. Well how is digging on one part of the moon or setting up camp on one part of Mars that different? Yes, some people will be pissed. Some people will be overly gung ho. The place where it is interesting is finding the right _balance_ between these things, and what kinds of systems we can configure to find that balance. None of this was discussed but it's where the most interesting conversation lies, in my opinion.
And related to that, my thinking was strongly influenced by the book Mine! by Michael A. Heller, James Salzman. They talk about all the different rules we have for determining ownership of things, e.g., first in time (like indigenous peoples), possession (9/10 of the law and all that), labored for it, strong attachment to something, self-ownership, and family. It would've been SO INTERESTING to bring this framework into the discussion of how we determine who can own parts of the Moon, Mars, etc. But nope.
That also reminds me of something that I noticed -- It seems like the author hasn't examined their own thoughts about indigenous people. Throughout the book, they ascribe a lot of weight to anything such people believe or find valuable. I get that, and feel much the same way. But what I was hoping the author would discuss is how that applies to colonizing Mars. All being indigenous means is that those people got there first (or that they got there a long time ago). Those people _were_ explorers! It just happened a long time ago and somehow that fact seems to make it so that none of the questions the author raised about later explorers are applicable.
The author _almost_ discussed this kind of thing. But instead jumped a step, talking about how "no one being there" on the moon or Mars isn't good enough justification. How would the rocks feel? What rights do these places have? There's _something_ of an argument there, but this gets back to that "is eating a carrot okay?" and how that's different from digging a camp on Mars, and back to the systems for how we find balance between multiple things we value as a society and species.
The author talks so much about how western society sucks because we've used christian stuff to justify our cruel expansion. I was hoping the author would dig deeper and get to the biological drive to expand. In my mind, all the manifest destiny talk is just leaders figuring out how to speak to their audiences, whether or not they believe this stuff themselves. Most forms of life seek to survive by expanding and adapting to new environments. Expanding to Mars is just the same. The author also seems to think we are somehow different from other life, somehow what _we_ do isn't natural. Carl Sagan came up a few times in the book: my favorite quote of his is, "We are a way for the universe to know itself." Just because we have intelligence, does not mean the things we do are unnatural. We are of nature -- it's literally impossible to do things that are unnatural. Where the nuance comes in to incorporate the authors view is that we should use our intelligence to _temper_ those primal drives and respect other forms of life and parts of nature, and the balance that must be maintained to allow all of these things to thrive. We shouldn't expand like self-replicating paperclips. But we shouldn't stick to one planet and enter a relentless pursuit to minimize our impact on nature to the point where we may as well not exist at all. It reminds me of Michael Pollen's books where he questions the whole premise that we've mastered nature -- have we domesticated corn, or has corn figured out a way to manipulate humans to spread it all over the place, not just surviving but thriving.
This is an extremely long review and I'm not spending the time to write it well. It is a testament to this book that it got me so fired up. My brain was on high gear the entire time I listened to it. So.. even if I strongly disagree with the conclusions of the book and find the method of argument to be extremely disappointing, it certainly got me passionate and kept me highly engaged.
Just came across this short interview clip with Carl Sagan, addressing exactly one of the major points made in this book and discussed above: https://twitter.com/carlsagandotcom/s...
Recommended by Parvathy.
May 4, 2024
An extraordinarily important book that deserves to be read far and wide. It would be so easy to just point out the dangers of the corporate space race - and many have. But Rubenstein goes a step further and shows how religion and mythology have gotten us here in the first place, and hints at how alternative religious philosophies might lead the way out…
December 16, 2023
This is exactly what needs to be said about the state of space exploration today. Humanity is hurtling toward as horrible of a colonial future in space as it is here on Earth. We need to imagine new futures.
April 6, 2023
I loved this book. Learned a lot, writing is engaging and intelligent.
December 25, 2023
If you want to understand what Elon Musk is really up to and why his plans are so dangerous, this scientifically based and nevertheless humorous report giives an excellent insight.
January 7, 2024
Excellent book, have me lots to think about. I've reviewed it in Sky at Night magazine (March 2024)
June 26, 2025
unique and compelling angle, accessible and enticing writing. author is seriously fighting an uphill battle but it's a deeply important and often overlooked one.
November 20, 2025
This is definitely the worst book I've read in a while as it reads like the author started with an opinion and wrote that opinion in a long rant without actually caring to understand the topic. The result is an embarrassing piece that seems more about intentionally lying to the reader than a book that the reader can learn from.
The author starts with a complaint about Christianity and, while misrepresenting it, then accuses Musk and Bezos as atheists and plundering the cosmos as individuals. The author's point is that the 'manifest destiny' religious ethos is bad. The author seems to entirely ignore the point of why it was bad by blurring rape, colonialism, and everything in-between as equivalent to picking up a rock. Frankly to equate the two is to be an apologist.
Then the author goes off on a deep-end talking about aliens and other religions. If the Inuit shamans have traveled regularly to the moon and back, they should've known that Americans landed on the moon. It should not have come as a surprise to them. The author's weaponization of identity politics is used frequently in place of a legitimate argument.
The author also spends too much time (any amount is too much) discussing UFO sightings and the idea that aliens wouldn't visit Earth because of Americans. It's an argument that one would make if they have run out of anything serious.
Overall, the book paints a picture that Musk and Bezos are the only people involved in space. They acknowledge in one small part how other organizations and countries are involved in space too, then completely ignore it for the entire rest of the book. It's hard to complain about Starlink and Amazon's Kupier (now Leo) satellite programs if you don't acknowledge that China and Europe are doing the same exact thing with the same exact impact.
The author's complaints about Space Force and military involvement in space ignores decades of this already happening and all of their space complaints focus on Musk and Bezos without actually addressing the fact that other countries are doing the same exact thing.
Who is supposed to be the 'community' you are asking for input before putting a base on the moon which is invisible to the naked eye? Why do we need to consult a seemingly random person? Do we need an international organization to regulate space launches, and what's to stop other countries from ignoring that body? The author fails to outline any sort of rational framework.
Maybe the author's suggestion is to kill the space programs entirely? Are they going to recommend using the military to stop private entities and foreign countries from launching rockets? The author is entirely ignorant of the ways that space program technologies end up being spun off into products that the average person benefits from. NASA releases a Spinoff magazine each year with this information.
The most egregious parts are where the author directly insults the subjects of their book. It shows not just an immaturity but a clear plan to misrepresent their points.
Space is cool and I don't think the author actually believes that. If they don't like the current way space policy is carried out, they don't actually come up with a different policy that is practical or provides us with any meaningful value. The author wants to keep everyone grounded regardless of what we want.
The author starts with a complaint about Christianity and, while misrepresenting it, then accuses Musk and Bezos as atheists and plundering the cosmos as individuals. The author's point is that the 'manifest destiny' religious ethos is bad. The author seems to entirely ignore the point of why it was bad by blurring rape, colonialism, and everything in-between as equivalent to picking up a rock. Frankly to equate the two is to be an apologist.
Then the author goes off on a deep-end talking about aliens and other religions. If the Inuit shamans have traveled regularly to the moon and back, they should've known that Americans landed on the moon. It should not have come as a surprise to them. The author's weaponization of identity politics is used frequently in place of a legitimate argument.
The author also spends too much time (any amount is too much) discussing UFO sightings and the idea that aliens wouldn't visit Earth because of Americans. It's an argument that one would make if they have run out of anything serious.
Overall, the book paints a picture that Musk and Bezos are the only people involved in space. They acknowledge in one small part how other organizations and countries are involved in space too, then completely ignore it for the entire rest of the book. It's hard to complain about Starlink and Amazon's Kupier (now Leo) satellite programs if you don't acknowledge that China and Europe are doing the same exact thing with the same exact impact.
The author's complaints about Space Force and military involvement in space ignores decades of this already happening and all of their space complaints focus on Musk and Bezos without actually addressing the fact that other countries are doing the same exact thing.
Who is supposed to be the 'community' you are asking for input before putting a base on the moon which is invisible to the naked eye? Why do we need to consult a seemingly random person? Do we need an international organization to regulate space launches, and what's to stop other countries from ignoring that body? The author fails to outline any sort of rational framework.
Maybe the author's suggestion is to kill the space programs entirely? Are they going to recommend using the military to stop private entities and foreign countries from launching rockets? The author is entirely ignorant of the ways that space program technologies end up being spun off into products that the average person benefits from. NASA releases a Spinoff magazine each year with this information.
The most egregious parts are where the author directly insults the subjects of their book. It shows not just an immaturity but a clear plan to misrepresent their points.
Space is cool and I don't think the author actually believes that. If they don't like the current way space policy is carried out, they don't actually come up with a different policy that is practical or provides us with any meaningful value. The author wants to keep everyone grounded regardless of what we want.
December 5, 2024
Rubenstein looks first at the religious attitudes toward nature in Genesis as a basis for later uses of religion as a cover for colonization, then surveys theorists of space travel against those covers. She provides an overview of Indigenous and Afrofuturist thinkers to show that there are other ways to do space study/exploration than the exploitative, commodified way it is trending now. It is a highly readable survey and well footnoted for those wanting more.
I found the most interesting chapters those on whether rocks had rights and where she summarized futuristic visions and applied them to space exploration. Also interesting was her treatment of various creation myths. She frequently repeated this: it doesn't matter if the myth is true or not; what matters is how believing the myth makes one behave. While it sounded convincing in each context where she used it, I begin to wonder how much we can push it. I'll have to ponder.
It would be a good introduction to colonization and futurist studies, but perhaps familiar to those already in the field other than the application to space exploration. Written in 2022, it is timely now given Elon Musk's apparent influence over Trump.
I found the most interesting chapters those on whether rocks had rights and where she summarized futuristic visions and applied them to space exploration. Also interesting was her treatment of various creation myths. She frequently repeated this: it doesn't matter if the myth is true or not; what matters is how believing the myth makes one behave. While it sounded convincing in each context where she used it, I begin to wonder how much we can push it. I'll have to ponder.
It would be a good introduction to colonization and futurist studies, but perhaps familiar to those already in the field other than the application to space exploration. Written in 2022, it is timely now given Elon Musk's apparent influence over Trump.
October 18, 2023
I've been meaning to get to Astrotopia for a while based on Rubenstein's appearance on
Tech Won't Save Us
, but I found myself a bit disappointed by the book. I think part of that is just a mismatch of interests: I find the book is strongest when Rubenstein explores the very real political, social, and economic factors that make the corporate space race egregious, but the religious or cultural elements were sometimes much less compelling to me, even if I understood or could appreciate some of the comparisons.
One thing that nagged me a little bit was the way she brushed aside some classic sci-fi. That's not at all to discount the fantastic female authors that she mentions, or the discussions of indigenous sci-fi and Afrofuturism. But one of the things that's most maddening and hypocritical about the main antagonists of her book, Musk and Bezos, is how they often fundamentally misunderstand the sci-fi they claim to love or act contrary to the moral principles it conveys.
One thing that nagged me a little bit was the way she brushed aside some classic sci-fi. That's not at all to discount the fantastic female authors that she mentions, or the discussions of indigenous sci-fi and Afrofuturism. But one of the things that's most maddening and hypocritical about the main antagonists of her book, Musk and Bezos, is how they often fundamentally misunderstand the sci-fi they claim to love or act contrary to the moral principles it conveys.
May 29, 2025
Set a straw man and weave your argument to its pantheistic destination. Theological critiques of humanity's activities in space could provide some interesting perspectives. Unfortunately, such are not set out here. A different set of moral binaries are employed: capitalism bad, indigenes good.
There is a decent polemic of space billionaires and nationalist agitprop (hey, China!) waiting to be written, employing hubris, nemesis and humour. The beauty of space and the pale blue dot will also hit home and such aesthetics need development. Demanding that we give a voice to every indigenous person on the planet (except where they are not allowed to have a voice?) is a prayer that will never be answered!
There is a decent polemic of space billionaires and nationalist agitprop (hey, China!) waiting to be written, employing hubris, nemesis and humour. The beauty of space and the pale blue dot will also hit home and such aesthetics need development. Demanding that we give a voice to every indigenous person on the planet (except where they are not allowed to have a voice?) is a prayer that will never be answered!
March 16, 2025
A very well-written, engaging, and though-provoking book about the religious underpinnings of the NewSpaceniks (think Musk and Bezos). It brings up the history of Western exploration though the lens of Western religion, with a focus on the interpretation of Genesis 2. It contrasts the "Manifest Destiny of the stars" with a pantheistic view of existence that would focus on care and sustainability, and also avoidance of Space. It is a must-read for skeptics of the new space race, a challenging book for those on the fence, and probably will never be read by those who believe our only hope is to go to Mars.
April 8, 2025
Important, accessible read for anyone whose mind is open to restructuring ideas about history/systems of power and how to build a better future for everyone (not just for the few whose wealth has distanced them from humanity + who are trying to broaden the gap by jetting away from the havoc they’re brought about on earth).
September 22, 2024
Interesting food for thought, especially around objectification. Strongest in the first 100 pages, the last 40 or so dwell too long on other stories. It's interesting how polarizing the reviews are on this one. I'm glad I picked this one up.
November 5, 2025
Nothing remarkable. Another book for my religion class that I audiobooked, so I can’t say I paid attention the entire time. Still interesting to listen to but again not mind blowing!
February 19, 2025
The world what and where it is
It has made me think about the world and relationships not just a place to put my feet. The recreation process of everything, the way it mutates naturally including human intervention.
It has made me think about the world and relationships not just a place to put my feet. The recreation process of everything, the way it mutates naturally including human intervention.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews